Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 9th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I call the meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference received May 10, 2016 and Standing Order 108(2), the committee will now begin its study of the supplementary estimates (A) for 2016-17 and the 2016 immigration levels plan.

Appearing before us today is Minister McCallum, along with senior department officials.

Minister, I would like to call vote 1a under Citizenship and Immigration Canada and invite you to make your opening statement.

Minister, the floor is yours.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you'd agree we're making a fairly regular appearance with you which is, of course, a great pleasure.

I'm joined by a number of officials: Richard Wex, the associate deputy minister; Catrina Tapley; Tony Matson; Dawn Edlund; and David Manicom.

Together, we will try to answer your questions.

I'm very pleased to be here today to present Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's requests for additional expenditures under the Supplementary Estimates (A) for fiscal year 2016-17.

The expenditures set out in the supplementary estimates come to $188.2 million.

In my remarks I will focus on some of the most significant funding items or transfers that we need to help the department meet its goals. As you will see, the items are linked largely to the refugee initiative and to my department's 2016 annual levels plan that was tabled in Parliament this spring. These are the two items on your agenda today.

Preliminary results for 2015-16 show that IRCC spent $188.8 million. This is approximately $110.7 million less than planned. These cost savings or deferred spending are the result of good financial management and cost-effective decisions. Several factors lay behind the government's coming in under budget: lower than anticipated costs for transportation and overseas processing; unused contingency funds; and finally, the decision not to use interim refugee lodging sites. Those were largely the military bases that could have been called upon to use but were not needed.

Under supplementary estimates (A), we are requesting a funding increase of $39.4 million under operating expenditures in the effort to resettle additional government-sponsored Syrian refugees. This will enable us to meet our commitment to resettle 25,000 government-sponsored Syrian refugees by the end of 2016.

This will provide for 51 full-time staff to be used in processing of permanent resident applications overseas. The funding will help pay for our partners' support in facilitating processing, as well as for commercial flights to transport refugees to this country from overseas, as well as pre-departure services. The money will also pay for department staff to help manage settlement programs, helping resettle Syrian refugees at their final destinations.

Resettlement funding increases of $99.6 million under grants and contributions will also go toward activities including refugee income support to help them start their new lives here, and funding for third parties to support overseas pre-departure services. This also includes funding to help integrate Syrian refugees into Canadian communities by providing settlement services such as employment and language training.

These estimates also contain another item related to refugees. In order to intervene in refugee applications or appeals where there are concerns about fraud, credibility, or system integrity, these estimates seek to continue with the ministerial reviews and intervention pilot project. This request for an increase of $5 million under operating expenditures would carry the project for one more year, pending a review of the pilot's results and taking a decision on whether to make this pilot permanent.

The request continues funding for some 63 full-time equivalents. This would include staff in three reviews and interventions offices who would review both refugee claims and decisions on the basis of integrity and credibility.

Funding would also provide for staff at the department's national headquarters to provide performance measurement, quality assurance and functional guidance.

Let me now turn to the 2016 levels plan, which I understand will be the focus of the second hour of this meeting.

As I said in a previous appearance before you, the government is committed to a strong, generous, and welcoming country through the immigration system. We strive to open Canada's doors to those who want to contribute to our prosperity and diverse culture,

The recent levels plan called for Canada to welcome 300,000 new permanent resident immigrants in 2016. That's the point target. The range is 280,000 to 305,000, which is the highest number of projected immigrant admissions since World War I. More families will be reunited under this plan. Family class admissions are expected to increase to between 75,000 and 82,000. Refugee admissions will be between 41,000 and 46,000, almost quadruple the range for 2015.

At the same time, we haven't lost sight of the fact that immigration is critical to Canada's economic future. That's why economic immigration programs will continue to account for the majority of all immigration admissions.

As I say that, I must also note that the numbers in the economic class include family members of principal applicants, and that immigrants in all classes, including refugees and reunited family members, make meaningful contributions to our economy and to our communities.

In other words, all immigrants are, to one degree or another, economic immigrants. I'm pleased that we are on track to meet our processing targets this year.

Consistent with the priorities identified in my mandate letter from the Prime Minister, the levels plan calls for the reduction in backlogs and an improvement in processing times in multiple programs, especially family class. Under these supplementary estimates, an adjustment to operating expenditures requires a $20.9-million increase to reduce application processing times and achieve higher immigration admissions. This is in keeping with an objective set out in the 2016 immigration levels plan.

The funding would provide for 191 full-time equivalents. It would support many activities, such as reducing existing family class inventories, increasing family class intake, and streamlining our processing.

Under grants and contributions is an increase of $18.1 million, also dedicated to this year's levels, which would go toward settlement services such as language training, employment bridging, and facilitating access to settlement services.

Integration of immigrants is key, so my department will use the money for settlement services, such as language learning for newcomers and support services that bridge new immigrants' arrivals in their communities and in places of employment.

Looking forward, this summer we will be engaging with Canadians on the topic of immigration. Our consultations will help feed the policies that determine how many immigrants come to Canada and what their backgrounds might be. Of course, what we hear will be reflected in the next levels plan, which by the way will not be for just one additional year but for three additional years.

As I indicated earlier, these are just some of the highlights of the adjustments under Supplementary Estimates (A). Our government's vision to attract more newcomers to this country can be understood through the 2016 levels plan. It is reflected in these Supplementary Estimates request. We want to be clear that we are making family reunification a core priority.

We see immigration as a key to economic and social success. At the same time, we want to ensure Canada does not neglect its international standing as a beacon for refugees fleeing persecution.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will stop. My officials and I will be very happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Minister, for those introductory remarks.

Mr. Chen, for seven minutes, please.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and staff, for attending today's meeting.

I first want to applaud the incredible work that's being done in the department, particularly around Syrian refugee resettlement.

In our previous meetings where we've heard from witnesses on the topic of the selection of government-assisted refugees, there have been questions around whether the government should go beyond the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in terms of selection for those government-assisted refugees, on the basis that there are many vulnerable populations around the world.

Minister, can you share what factors the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would look at? What factors would be considered in their work to select the most vulnerable?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

We have great faith in the United Nations to provide us the best possible information on who are, indeed, the most vulnerable refugees. We have relied on the United Nations to select those people according to their criteria, with which we agree. In particular, refugees are considered on grounds of need irrespective of religion or other such factors.

I'll ask Dawn Edlund or David Manicom to describe in more detail, with more precision, the criteria used by the United Nations.

[David Manicom, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees works closely with all resettlement countries from around the world, including the large resettlement countries such as Canada, the United States, Australia, and others, for each population to develop indicators of vulnerability.

The indicators of vulnerability are based not only on the reason they fled their country, but also on whether they are vulnerable in their country of first asylum, whether they have necessary supports, whether they have family members to help them, or whether they are single women dealing with extreme vulnerability inside a refugee camp.

The indicators of vulnerability vary from population to population. Sometimes they are very individual and cannot be defined as groups, but they include things such as being a member of a religious minority, persecution due to sexual orientation, and vulnerability to violence in the place where they are now.

When the United Nations interviews refugees, they take note of all of these factors, and then from among the tragic situation in the country of first asylum, look at whether the individual should be a priority for resettlement to another country.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you.

Under the supplementary estimates, we see there will be an additional 10,000 Syrian GARs in 2016. As part of that, there is an increase of $99.6 million for resettlement funding. This money will go toward supporting refugee communities, to help them start their lives and to provide them services, such as employment and language training programs.

We've also heard from organizations that their funding, for example for LINC programs, has been decreased. Common sense would dictate that simply because one particular organization has a lower funding for a particular year, it doesn't mean that overall funding hasn't increased.

Could you explain why certain organizations might receive less funding in a particular year while other organizations receive more funding to support programs like LINC?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Yes.

I think we are doing the right thing in terms of the three-year moving average formula. It was introduced by the previous government, I believe. This is one of the items from the previous government with which we agree, and that is that the money should basically go to where the immigrants are going. The amount of money any province receives is proportional to the number of immigrants that province receives, as calculated by a three-year moving average. If one province gets more than it used to, it will get more money. If it gets fewer than it used to, it will get less money. That is the division of a pie of a given size, if you wish.

In addition, there have been substantial increases in the amount of money, notably for language training, but also for other aspects of settlement. I think Dawn Edlund has information on language training in British Columbia she can share with you.

[Dawn Edlund, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Certainly, Minister.

Mr. Chair, British Columbia was one of the provinces using the three-year rolling average where the amount of allocation dropped. That meant that service provider organizations generally for all settlement services had a cut of between 1% and 8%. When we had the large amounts of money specifically for Syrian refugees, we targeted that money not under that settlement funding formula, but to where the Syrian refugees were actually settling and being permanently housed.

Our staff across the country have been working closely with the service provider organizations to identify the needs of the refugee population, in particular, and identifying funding priorities. As funding amounts of money have been approved, that money has been pushed out the door to meet those needs.

For example, in British Columbia, at the end of fiscal year 2015-16 for the Syrian refugee arrivals, and for the full year of 2016-17, there's been an increase of funding for language training of $3.28 million. That's allowed the creation of 69 language classes and about 1,242 seats for the Syrian refugees who were there. That's actually been targeted at the specific communities where we know that Syrians have resettled and also where there were wait lists.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

You have 15 seconds.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

What types of services are available after 12 months for GARs?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I think the 15 seconds are gone, but after 12 months, the income support ends but the other supports for language training in other areas continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Rempel, you have seven minutes, please.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Matson, earlier this week, the minister told the House of Commons that the government had “funded $600 million for settlement in 2016-17. That is $27 million extra for the new refugees”. Are those figures correct?

[Tony Matson, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

My understanding is that those figures are correct.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

By my calculation, that would be roughly about $773 million from last year. The $27 million would be roughly a 4% increase in additional funding for settlement. Would that be correct?

[Tony Matson]

Yes, I believe that would be correct, but I will turn that over to Catrina Tapley.

[Catrina Tapley, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Chair, for us, 2016-17 is a pretty special year in terms of settlement funding. Maybe I can explain it in terms of three components.

We have a base amount for settlement funding of about $588 million. This is the money we spend on settlement funding outside the province of Quebec. For 2016-17 we have two top-ups, if you like, to that money. One is $38.6 million in supplementary funding that has been provided for Syria that is being distributed as well. On top of that are the funds from the federal budget, the $54.3 million over five years. For 2016-17, that's roughly about $19.3 million.

Also, if I may, Mr. Chair, what you see in the supplementary estimates is a possible additional amount of $9.3 million which is some unused contingency funding for settlement.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

In total, would the additional amounts for settlement this year be roughly about $90 million to $100 million, if I'm doing the math in my head correctly?

[Catrina Tapley]

In terms of what's available outside the province of Quebec, I would say it's roughly about $640 million, but that includes funds we also spend on pre-arrival services overseas.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Sure.

By my math, then, and what we've just talked about, that would be about a 16% increase for funding for settlement services. Yet, the minister's notes here say that you're looking at a 400% increase in bringing refugees to Canada.

Do you think the funding that's been budgeted here is going to be adequate, given that there's a 400% increase in refugees coming in and we're seeing a 16% increase in funding for refugee services? Do you feel that's perhaps a bit off?

[Richard Wex, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Chair, maybe I could just add to my colleague's comments.

In terms of the member's question, it's a very welcome point that settlement and integration is frankly the most difficult aspect of this national project, and the needs of this group, and particularly the government-assisted refugees, do have a certain socio-demographic profile that is of higher needs.

In terms of the injection of funds, to speak to the member's questions, there has been a significant injection of funds in terms of recent budgets associated with this 25,000 welcome refugees initiative. Of the $678 million for the 25,000, there will be $150 million over three years to increase settlement.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you. You didn't answer my question, and I'm running out of time.

The minister introduced in his speaking points the issue of military housing, the fact that there had been cost savings realized due to the fact that these facilities weren't used. Because the minister introduced that, could you please provide the committee with the total amount spent across government departments on retrofitting or improving military housing that wasn't used as part of the Syrian refugee initiative?

[Dawn Edlund]

I have the amount that was saved in relation, so I have to do the math to figure out what the amount spent was. I believe, through a parliamentary question, the Department of National Defence answered this question and talked about money spent for retrofitting the military bases. It was already in their planned spending. They were already going to do that retrofitting anyway, and so that amount of money was already set aside for them to do that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

The extra funds—